Lippman calls grand jury system ‘a relic,’ pitches reforms

In the wake of polarizing grand jury decisions in the police-related deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, New York’s top judge wants judges to oversee the grand jury process in cases involving deadly and near-deadly incidents involving police and civilians.

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman also wants to make public the testimony of super-secret grand jury proceedings in which the panel elected not to bring charges.

The judge’s proposals came as Lippman delivered his final State of the Judiciary address; he will reach the mandatory retirement age of 70 on May 19.

“As chief judge, it is not my role to defend or decry a particular grand jury decision,” Lippman said. “But the grand jury is a vital component of our judicial system – under the law, it is a part of the court and an institution for which the Judiciary is ultimately responsible.”

Lippman said his proposals would aid public access and confidence in the justice system, “preserve the integrity of the judicial branch, law enforcement, and the institution of the grand jury — in many ways, a relic of another time that must be modernized and updated to meet the complex challenges of today’s justice system.”

25 Responses

What’s next, opening up the roster of the Witness Protection Program because the bad guys have a right to know where their accusers are hiding? The judge might want to review the reasoning behind the mandatory retirement age.

“The judge would be present to provide legal rulings, ask questions of witnesses, decide along with the grand jurors whether additional witnesses should be called to testify, preclude inadmissible evidence or improper questions and provide final legal instructions before the grand jury deliberates,” Lippman said.”
>
Reading the full article, I see the same biased attitude towards police officers, law enforcement personnel, that Kuomo came up with in response to the actions of hate groups, that do not respect anyone in law enforcement. All of those duties, that Lippman outlines, are an integral part of the judges job, IN THE COURTROOM, not the grand jury room. If the jurors have any questions, need to rehear testimony, or any other clarifications, there is already a system in place to fulfill those needs. The system has worked well in for a long, long time. Just because there are those who are dissatisfied, and influenced by the medias tendency to want to form opinion and try cases in the media, that complies with their political and personal opinions, the system still works, most of the time.
I have supported the concept of professional grand jurors for a long time. It would require a degree as a paralegal, with a specialty for the category of professional grand juror. The judges, and the attorneys on both sides require professional credentials, so why shouldn’t the grand jury system require the same professionalism? We are talking a circumstance that can destroy a persons life, or release a cold blooded killer, due to personal beliefs, and biases, as well as media influence. And there are those, like Lippman and Kuomo who feel that law enforcement personnel should be tried with a different, more stringent standard than a serial killer, rapist or even terrorist. That begs the question of their biases, likes or dislikes of law enforcement personnel. And much of that attitude, in society has been fostered by the media. A law, requiring that the media report on the facts, and only the facts, in the case of criminal law, from arrest to conviction or acquittal. The world does not need the Nancy Graces trying these high profile cases, even before, in some cases, all charges have been filed. It shouldn’t be a system that has to ask if the potential juror has heard of the case, it should be a system where there are professional jurors, who, like judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, are held to the higher standards. The average Joe or Jane does not have anything invested in their decision, with the possible exception of personal opinion or bias. A professional juror would have their career on the line, and laws should provide strong consequences for those who do not keep to that professional standard. So, I believe it may be an idea whose time has come.

Oh yes, a couple of other points. All judges should be elected, not appointed. That opens the door to the common practice of stacking the judicial, for years and possibly even decades. They should run for six year terms, and only be able to serve two terms. It should not be a career path, or a tool for legislating from the bench. Their are changes that really need to be made. And it is even more important at the highest levels of the court system.

All of this begs the question, just why is a judge an advocate of legislation? This has nothing to do with running the court system or deciding cases before the Court of Appeals. It is not the function of a Chief Judge to suggest changes to the law, but this has been a hallmark of Judge Lippman’s tenure. If he wants to change something, he should write to his legislator or the governor like everyone else. This is not part of the “State of the Judiciary,” but it certainly is part of his use of the bully pulpit.

Typical of the reactionary leftist elites, things don’t go their way a few times, the whole system is unfair, change the rules to suit their warped views. A grand jury just indicted the NYC copy who shot an innocent guy in a dark stairwell. Does Lippman want to overturn that one?

My understanding of the Grand Jury is that it establishes that a crime has been committed and hands down an indictment to the apparent perpetrator for further action. Judge Lippman, it appears would give great weight to the press, individuals and organizations at odds with the outcomes of these legal processes embedded in our founding laws, and society. Further, to treat Public Officers different from everyone else, confronts the United States Constitution, in so many ways. Who is behind Lippman?

Typical of reactionary Republicans, they oppose changing the SYSTEM.
Prosecutors generally present evidence to a Grand Jury in support of indicting the accused. When the accused is a cop, and prosecutors need teh cooperation of cops to do their jobs, there is an obvious conflict of interest.
Why are Republicans so opposed to Justice & Reform?

Judge Lippman is wrong.
His idea is discriminatory as it focuses only on the following:
New York’s top judge wants judges to oversee the grand jury process in cases involving deadly and near-deadly incidents involving police and civilians.
Who would serve on a grand jury if the record is public and the thugs arrive at your doorstep because they are not happy with the ruling even though the evidence supports the ruling?
And worse they appear when the government rallies and su$$orts the thugs calling it social justice.
He’s pandering to the community organizers and union that sponsor the I hate the grand jury rulings looting sprees.
We the people should be electing the judges.
We have a politically infiltrated judiciary (activist judges) thanks to political appointments to the bench.
Happy retirement Judge.